In 1807, Napoleon, concerned if Jews could ever become real Frenchmen, in exchange for full civil rights, convened what he called a "Sanhedrin" of 71 rabbis from all over his empire, presenting them with questions as to their beliefs, and how they regarded non-Jews. The rabbis reported back to him that their beliefs could be divided into two separate doctrines. About half of them felt that the Torah was no longer operative, except as a guide. These decided to dub themselves "Reform". The other half believed that the Torah, with all of its laws and doctrines, is eternal. This group decided to call itself "Orthodox".. This was the first time that these terms were used in a Jewish context. Until then, one was "just Jewish", with some observing the Torah, and others not. To be sure, Orthodoxy had different forms, and even different beliefs, in different times and places, but the common denominator was the acceptance and practices of Torah and Talmudic tradition. The inclusive nature of Jewish tradition can be best illustrated by the publishing of Mikraot Gedolot (Great Scriptures) in 1524. This work, in various editions, is still used in virtually all Jewish schools around the world. It consists of the full text of the Tanach, together with the traditional Targum (Aramaic translation). In some Biblical books, there are two or three Targumim in different styles. In addition, there were a host of commentaries from different medieval rabbis, surrounding the Biblical text. Their approaches were as different as day and night. Subsequent editions contained additional commentaries. Perhaps the most venerated is the commentary of RASHI. His commentary attempts to give the literal meaning of Scripture, with much added Aggadic material. He is sometimes called the most Jewish of the commentators. Also present is RASHBAM, a grandson of RASHI, who is so super literal, that he often departs from Jewish tradition in his interpretation, albeit insisting on observing the tradition, rather than his interpretation. He posits a complete separation between text and tradition. For example, he understands Scripture as declaring the day to begin at dawn, rather than nightfall (interpreting "there was evening and there was morning, One Day" as meaning evening came; when morning came it was now one day). But he never suggested that his interpretation should be in any way accepted as halachah, nor did he change his own practice.. Also present is RAMBAN (Nachmanides), who makes frequent use of Kabbalah to understand problems in Scripture. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra is also present in Mikraot Gedolot. He is a literalist, a grammarian, and a philosopher. However, in some difficult passages, he writes an enigmatic "there is a secret (sod) here". In his other writings, he clarifies the meaning of this "secret" that he recognizes the possibility that some passages may contain human errors, or even may be from a later hand. Nevertheless, when he saw RASHBAM's interpretation of the day beginning at dawn, he tore it out from his own copy on Shabbat, for fear that some people would be misled! His commentary also includes polemical diatribes against Karaism. Newer editions contain fifteen different commentaries, all in different directions. The common thread is the Divine origin of Scripture, and the eternal obligation to observe it, along with the elucidations of the Oral Torah. Few have questioned the special place of Mikraot Gedolot in Judaism. Until about 1800, no one questioned the validity of its commentaries. With the rise of Reform, lines were drawn in the sand. Orthodox means "straight belief". What exactly DO we beleive, that separates us from non-Torah "Judaism"? Books were written and are still being written, trying to pin down what is "straight" and what is crooked. This was virtually unknown in earlier times. As I have written in earlier series, RAMBAM's Thirteen Principles of Faith were largely ignored, or even denounced, in the Middle Ages. After the Sabbatean debacle of the mid seventeenth century, most rabbis sought a philosophical, logical, non mystical and clearly defined Judaism. RAMBAM became central. Modern translations of Mikraot Gedolot in English, have been edited (censored) to make them conform to our current "accepted" concepts. Even RASHI is not immune, with passages which might challenge some current rabbinic ideas conveniently disappearing. In my opinion, these developments stand at the center of the controversy between different factions of Orthodoxy. Rather than the earlier concept of "both these and these are the words of the living G-d", now there was only one approach. But which one? Who gets to decide? Yeshiva heads? Rabbinic organizations? (Which one?). Local practices? Views of a particular rabbi?This kind of intolerance can be argued to have saved us from heresy, or, on the contrary, formed a new Judaism that would be unrecognizable to our ancestors. I believe that if today's controversies had existed five hundred years ago, there probably would have been books written defending one approach over another. But there would not have been the rejection and delegitimizing of other groups, so long as they were Torah based. In my next post, I will get into some of these present day groups, and examine how they differ from each other, and why. I believe that then we will not only come to a better understanding of Judaism, but also why Baalei Teshuvah, and more so converts, often unknowingly step on the toes of major rabbis and organizations, raising anew issues that have been "hot topics" in recent generations, and had been considered as having been laid to rest.